f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

It looks like New York Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien has accepted

the widespread mantra that billable hour quotas are the main culprit keep-

ing young lawyers in firms from finding satisfactory life-work balance.  In an

article about the plight of female lawyers at top firms, O’Brien quotes Pros-

kauer Rose partner Bettina B. Plevan saying

.

“As long as firms are male-

dominated, it’s much less likely that firms will make changes to accept the

challenges of work-life balance.”   The article continues (New York Times,

“Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?,” , March 19,

2006) :

“ONE of the main bugaboos in this debate — and one that analysts

says is increasingly cropping up as an issue for male lawyers as well

— is the billable hours regime. Billing by the hour requires lawyers to

work on a stopwatch so their productivity can be tracked minute by

minute — and so clients can be charged accordingly.  . . .

The article then quotes Massachusetts lawyer Lauren Stiller Rikleen, author

of Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women’s Success in the Law: “I

see a lot of people who are distressed about where the profession has gone,”

Ms. Rikleen says. “They don’t like being part of a billable-hour production unit.

They want more meaning out of their lives than that.”

.

Complaining about “the billable-hours regime” is like a condemned man complaining

about the executioner using a rope.  If they get rid of the rope, they will substitute

another means to secure his death.  It’s the death penalty that is the problem not

the rope.   As we said in the post chronomentrophobia:

From the perspective of the overworked associate or partner, there

is nothing wrong with the billable hour fee system that is not very

likely to be carried over to any alternative billing arrangements, if

the firm expects the shift to be made without reducing its income

or profits.  See: Patrick J. Schiltz, “Money and Ethics: the Young

Lawyer’s Conundrum” (Wash. State Bar Assn, Jan 2000); MyShingle,

Stop Whining, Start Asking (Jan 5, 2005); f/k/a: “Prof. Schiltz’s Ser-

mon as Required Reading (Sept. 27, 2003; fee fie foe and fum (Jan.

1, 2005).”

Let’s try to think this through:  Why do law firms have billable-hour quotas

for their associates?  Could it be so they will each generate a certain

amount of fees?  Doesn’t “We expect you to work X hours” sound much

more dignified than “We expect you to produce $YYY this years in legal

fees“?

.

Life will not get more balanced for associates, female or male, if the

regime of billable hour quotas is discarded, unless it becomes perfectly

acceptable for the young lawyer to generate less income without it affecting

future partner status.  Indeed, if not, and the firm management still expects

each lawyer to produce the same amount of billed income, it might get even

more stressful — the associate won’t know how to keep score; won’t know

if he or she is keeping pace for the year.  That might be especially true if

fee contracts with clients are based on some post-completion assessment

of the “value” or the performance to the client.

Maybe O’Brien, in fact, understands this and purposely used the word

“bugaboo.”  After all, it’s usual meaning is “An object of obsessive, usually

exaggerated fear or anxiety” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)  Right

after mentioning the billable hour regime, the article get to the crux of

the problem:

“Over the last two decades, as law firms have devoted themselves

more keenly to the bottom line, depression and dissatisfaction

rates among both female and male lawyers has grown, analysts

say; many lawyers of both genders have found their schedules

and the nature of their work to be dispiriting.”

As for the main theme of the article, see our post from January 26,

2006, maybe women lawyers are just wiser than the men [and

therefore choose more life-affirming options that are less likely

to lead to a partner’s chair or share].

.

update (March 20, 2006): Carolyn Elefant makes lots of good sense

in her response to the NYT article:

“I know it’s not PC to say so, but ultimately, the problem

with large firms is that everyone, male and female, is held

to an equal standard:  generate more billables, bring in more

revenue.  It’s an inhumane standard, sure, but it’s gender

neutral.  The real success stories aren’t the women who

continue to whine for accommodations at large firms that aren’t

available to men, but rather, the women who go out and create

their own firms so that they can have the best of both worlds,

on their own terms.”     [Now, if only more men would do it,

and spend more time with their kids!]

So, does Timothy Hadley at math class for poets — and I hope he

keeps his promise to tell us more.  Meanwhile, Bob Ambrogi has

some links and quotes at Inside Opinions.

gate’s cherry tree
all this flit-flit flitting
is work!

surprising the worker
in the field…
out-of-season blooms

the dragonfly, too
works late…
night fishing

siesta work
for the stepchild…
picking brother’s fleas

rich and poor
have fallen down drunk…
blossom shade

the moonflowers
strike it rich!
the stars

Kobayashi Issa

translated by David G. Lanoue

“moneyBag sm”